Three Shades of Grey,- is that Boris at the end of the tunnel?

A fairly recent innovation the lomg suffering British public could do with out is New Year message from our political party leaders,- well, heads. They would all probably increase their ratings by saying absolutely nothing during what is meant to be the festive season.

None of them is in the least bit festive,- ever.

Dave seriously says we are on the right track but it is a long and tedious one with lots of grey along it.

Ed the preacher says something in class war tones about fairness. Nothing about how he, the Ballses and the Brown team brought the country to its economic knees through reckless overspending and artifical creation of non productive artificial jobs in the public sector while throwing out welfare bungs in all directions. They would dearly love to have another go at the same recipe. After all, "the rich" can pay for it.

Nick, the perpertually ashen faced, also goes on about the unobtainable nirvana of total fairness while urging his party to keep the coalition government in the centre and free of evil Tory plans to be beastly. Joining the easy-to-do class war and adding to the impression that he is still in short trousers, the ex-Westminster public schoolboy he says his coalition partners can't be trusted to look after people other than the super-rich.  Overall the LibDems' aim in life appears to be to ensure the government's ability to do anything much is neutralised and neutered.  They don't like new runways, railways, roads, power stations and most other things that make people and the world go round either. Marks for exciting forward thinking ? Zero. Great partners to have.

Little wonder that most of the nation reach for the "Off" or at least "Mute" button every time these three gents appear on the screen. All three totally lack inspiration, vision or have anything exciting to say. Ed occasionaly manages a smirk. Otherwise all three find humour, pleasure, joy and those sorts of things impossible to express. Would most people enjoy going in holiday, having a kitchen supper, a drink in a pub or even a latte in Starbucks with them? Unlikely.

The 2015 election may well end up in another coalition with Labour the largest party and the LibDems snuggled up to them in what most of their MPs and members would consider a much more natural and comfortable alliance. The LibDems would most likely find that Labour treated them with greater courtesy and "respect" but were actually far more ruthless in cutting them to shreds behind the scenes. The Conservatives are pussycats compared to Labour in many of the political dark arts and are much more organised in the execution of them.

Unless they win an outright overall majority the Tory Party will want a change of leader after the election. It is possible , though less likely, that they will go for one before as many now recognise that Cameron's image is now too firmly set as the remote toff surrounded by small clique of similar going back to his school and university days. The fact that he has allowed this positioning to develop indicates that his political and social antennae are poor or that he doesn't understand what he is seeing. Neither gives confidence in his political longevity or ability to emotionally connect with the electorate.

There is also the question of Cameron's philosophy and vision for Britain around which he has to invite the nation to rally. He simply doesn't seem to have one.  He is at best a manager,-and not a very exciting one,- not a leader. There is no sign of energy and commitment to even a dream of a ew and better future for Britain and without one what has he and his party to offer? All that the Party does is presented piecemeal and not as a coherent whole although in fact it has many good and consistent strands running through it. Is Cameron and therefore a Cameron led party electable in 2015?

Conservatives have therefore probably spent the last few very grey days of a pretty grey 2012 looking gloomily into 2013 hoping to see something better through the murk. They will also be trying to dismiss the feeling that the party might arrive at the end of 2015 having done the hard yards in getting some sort of order back into the economy and dealt with a wide range of issues whose ill effects have built over decades and especially since the Brownite abandonment of Prudence in 2000 only for Labour to take over again , say "thanks for doing the nasty and difficult stuff,- we'd have had to do that too " and reap the benefits through a new term of office.  The Tories might even reflect that 2010 was an election which would have been better lost.

In searching for a beacon of light and a clue as to how 2015 might be won, Tory strategists must be looking at the 2012 London Mayoral elections. Here, against a pro-Labour flow a Tory arch-toff Boris Johnson, defeated the long standing London darling of the London left , chattering classes, establishment socialites as well as normal people, Ken Livingstone . That proved that the Conservatives' problem isn't about Etonians, toffness and those staple hates of the left. It's about charisma and the ability to communicate with and relate to absolutely anybody,- even when stuck on a zip wire. The Tory problem would be even worse if either of the other two leaders has an ounce of presence or ability to inspire. Fortunately neither do which is why few bother to listen to them either.

Boris Johnson, by far the cleverest and most erudite of the four, is never going to be an old style classic Prime Minister. Neither is he going to be in the weapy eyed moralising articificial "Tone" Blair sort. Nor will he modify his accent to fit what he thinks to be the audience and he won't dive into Greggs to buy a pasty for the photo opportunity. He will create enough of those of his own.

One drawback is that Boris tends to be waylaid by single issues and get into some difficult cul-de-sacs. However , if supported by a first rate group of people to actually do the business and make things happen he could be exactly what the British nation needs to rally and energise people and the economy. His "Do something" approach is miles apart from Cameron's kicking of the tough balls into the far distance beyond 2015. He radates energy, is able to deliver tough messages in an acceptable though often blunt way. He is not boring and he is a very able politician. He should not therefore be dismissed as any kind of joke or joker. With the right team he could save the Tory party from even more shades of grey and even a disaster in 2015 and beyond. For starters he wasn't booed at the London Olympics.  For seconds he'd radiate energy and fun (while demanding performance from his everyone) anywhere. That's a pretty good launch pad.

Beware Eurocrats talking solidarity.

Actually, beware of anyone uttering the word "solidarity". Anyone, anywhere, any time taking it at cosy face value as a friendly arm around the shoulders displays only solidarity between the ears. The word is entrenched deeply in socialist and controlling/dictatorial lexicons. It is code not for a warm embrace but a crushing bear hug, around the throat if necessary, and means  conform or else". It is a word of the controller, dictator and/or bully. Treat it therefore with extreme caution.

It is therefore no surprise that it cropped up in the wake of the treacly self congratulation indulged in by those EU leaders who so ridiculously accepted the absurd Nobel Peace prize for not having marched into or over each other since 1945. The Times' picture of the heads of Mrs Merkels, President Hollande whose countries fought each other in World War 2 and Mario Monti of Italy whose nation cleverly fought on both sides all close together , each with their own variations of what is probably meant to be a triumphant smile is priceless and  worthy of a major caption competition. Maybe the uniting factor was that David Cameron wasn't there to spoil the rather good party (no cheap wine again this week, that's for sure), There is no sign in the photos of Dave's emissary, the lad Nick, but he was there somewhere glowing at being at least in the same room as the big boys and the Head Girl.

The "s" word then cropped up again in this week's Eurozone success when the same players agreed to bind themsleves more deeply and more expensively into driving on with the artifical one-size-fits all fiscal impracticality, the Euro, yet again denying the awful cliff edge somewhere ahead just beyond,- and maybe not very far beyond,- their headlights. Intoxicated by the resultant cameraderie up popped the unelected head of the unelected European Commission the sharp suited Barroso saying that the agreement heightened the need to drive on to further political unity,-or solidarity. To him and many other very well fed (thankyou European taxpayers) Brusselscrats the answer to any Eurozone or EU problem is a call to push further into unity and centralisation rather than to pull back, reflect and back away from visions of an even more stifling regime of undemocratic centralist control . The option of veering away to the much lower cost, more democratic and more sensible,practical and desirable notion of a free trade rather than fully controlled and micro managed Europe.

The purveyors of solidarity have therefore had a good few days and are glowing suitably as well as growling or glaring at or simply ignoring the perfidious British who mainly don't like what they see coming, and Lib Dems apart , never really have done.

 To celebrate all this and administer a further dose of solidarity, the usual suspects have, regardless of Britain's early protests, voted to increase the EUs budget and thereby the Commissions abilty to meddle in anything they care to. All this increases the cost of the whole Brussells apparatus at a time when none of those who pay the bills have any spare cash and are cutting back on their governmental spending extravagances back home (Well, some are. Others are asking for more time and meanwhile remaining on the beach  afraid of going cold turkey after decades of dependence on state funds). The rest of the world, especially the parts which are working 24/7 to secure better standards of living for themselves and the next generation, look on with amazement as the already fat, happy and self indulgent Europe adds further costs/overheads to its activities and doing business while continuing to indulge in all kinds of limitations on its own productivity and prosperity and to generally tie its own hands and feet together. This world beyond shakes its heads in disbelief, shrugs and gets on with designing and building the future. Unthinking "Solidarity" is the way to ensure that Europe doesn't have one.

Taking out the suspense. Do we really want that?

Not long ago episodes of the weekly cliff hanging thriller would end with the killer's knife-bearing hand raised ready for the fatal blow. Then would follow a brief burst of tension inducing music and  the credits would mercilessly roll leaving the viewer in a paroxysm of terror. A whole week before the truth is revealed . Did he/she do it or did something intervene in the nick of time?  Recently the format has changed. Just as you thought it was all over there are flashes forward to next week's edition. In some of these the intended victim looks fit and well. From that it can reasonably be concluded that they, usually a near psycho lady detective, ducked at the crucial moment so all was well. Phew, that's good then. No suspense, no tension. Put the kettle on. We can sleep well tonight and the next edition can be viewed from on the sofa, not behind it.

The same thing has happened in that other, if declining, theatre, the House of Commons. Budget statements and other policy statements were closely guarded secrets. Heads would roll (at one time literally) if there were any leaks. In the Budget the first hint the nation got of whether the next 90 minutes were going to cause elation or depair could come in the Chancellors drink, his antidote to a dry throat, something that can occur especially if one is lying. A glass of tap water would signify austerity, but milk, honey and maybe a dash of something a little stronger indicated a happy afternoon and good times to come. If he was clearly smashed before he even started talking that was probably a bad sign. Now almost all parliamentary announcements or trailed ,-that means officially leaked,- days in advance .As result they are thoroughly analysed by the 24 hour media not just once but three times. Before, during and after. The during really need not happen at all. The middle man, the House of Commons bit, could be eliminated entirely and the whole process of announcing and discussing anything be left to the various media and twitters and tweets. In view of the quality of and attendance at many Commons debates there may be some merit in that but on the other hand when you think about what some of the press, not to the mention the own-agenda BBC, can get up to that may not be worth the downside risk if we want to keep some vestiges of democracy.

In both cases better theatre and more excitement and interest would be generated by not knowing what was going to happen in the real thing on the day. Do we really want decaffinated versions of everything? No adrenaline rushes, clenched knuckles or looking away? Just perpetual blandness?

Can we rewind and go back to anticipation and suspense? We know that excitement must carry a health warning "Could raise blood pressure, cause heart failure, death, etc" but we think it's worth it. It might just feel a bit more real. For the politicans it might just raise interest in what apart from fiddling expenses and polishing desks with assistants or colleagues goes on in Parliament. Some gain there to be sure. Now back to Sarah Lund.

Europe. Cameron comes in from the cold,- and effectively.

David Cameron will have come home from his couple of days in Brussels with some satisfaction.None of this will have been derived from the £120 a bottle wine served at the leaders' inevitably non austerity dinner. They just don't do the under £10, the under £20, £50 or even £100 ranges on these occasions and must have some peculiar assumption that their millions of constituents wouldn't want them to either. "Nothing but the best for our leaders" must be the Eurocrats assumption of what the struggling masses would be saying if asked. Indeed the same rule of opulence extends everywhere one finds the officials, from the front of aeroplanes to the creature comforts of their offices. As is well known though, nobody in Brussels does actually ask "the people" what they want,- even whether or not they want an EU in its political rather than free trade area form at all.

Having flown over (What, no Eurostar?) against a background of media and Labour pictures of how foolish it would be to isolate the UK from the centre of vital European decison making and all those "can't/mustn't do it" bogeymen  and Guardianista and Blairists' handwringing about how vital the EU monolith concept is to Europe's survival in the face of the world's other and trading giants, it was expected that Dave would return isolated ,with a bloody nose and a straight "No" from everything to all he demanded.

Instead he was far from isolated . Instead there emerged a new grouping of the UK, the Nordic countries, Holland and a Germany split from its usual bedmate France. These countries all said "Enough" and agreed that spending must be curbed.  Holland's socialist, agriculture subsidy addicted, France risked Angela's scowls and positioned itself  with the southern  and ex Soviet satellite "We want more money" group . These good people also believe that the financier of their cargo cult should be Germany. What would anyone be saying if they were a good, hard working German especially if  one of those on the western side of the country who have paid for former East Germany to become part of the unified country?

The UK and Germany, despite their historic propensity for knocking nine bells out of each other, always been far more natural allies than adversaries. The Franco/German alliance has on the other hand been a much less natural one born of politics and a sort of German conscience. In general it has tied Germany's hands and benefitted France. Maybe, just maybe, the relationship  will now become less cosy or at least excluding of others . If that happens the EU could be much more free to rethink its own future. To do that , the politicians will also have to take on the biggest block to debate, -the very highly paid officials who have ben allowed to create a dream world in which they have been all powerful.  They were,- at last,- the clinically targeted aim of much that Cameron had to say this week. They personally have everything to lose and little to gain from any major change in the way the organisation does its business. They have always seen the scowling UK as the biggest threat to their power and glory. In natural response they are the biggest block to debate or anything that smacks of a real democracy rather than top-down rule by the unelected Commission itself. Their power control needs are very high and ultimately threaten the EU as an institution. Again Cameron scored a bullseye the machine rather than the member states this week. The boy done well.

Inevitably there were some ritual denialist mutterings from the UK's Labour Party about Cameron having (again) upset the EU and left Britain friendless (it always has been) and without influence (which the Europhiles, unware of the conversations that really happen in the offfice blocks, bars and restaurants of Brussels have always deluded themselves into believing the UK ever had.). In fact by drawing a line in the sand of profligacy, the UK brought a fundamental split into the open and  moved back to centre stage. It did not end up alone as hoped by Van Rompuy, Barroso and friends but was now joined by others  talking good, hard , financial sense.

Far from isolating Britain this week, Cameron has brought the country to centre stage as part of a rational group for whom continuing profligacy by the EU and the serious control ambitions and self indulgence of officials is not an option. The next round is "In the New Year". There is much to be done to consolidate this week's gain before then . For sure the "Spend" group will be working hard to overturn it and the Commission officials will be seeking every way to consolidate, perpetuate and grow their power,- their comfort ,and even those £120 bottles of wine.

Quickies behind the headlines...

-David Cameron is saying it is time to pin back profligate EU Commission spending. Absolutely right even if predicatably unpopular in Brussels where the spenders live,play and eat very well. Ed Miliband warns against standing up to the EU as the UK might lose influence. The reality ,to which Miliband either is blind to/denies or just doesn't comprehend ,is that the UK has never had much real power in the core of the EU.  There is little love for Britain in the largely socialistic and centralising corridors of Brussels, a city which itself would be pretty much dead if it were not for presence of the huge and free spending organisation. To seek to appease it by rolling over and accepting further profligacy is absurd as well as demeaning. Britain's greatest, if lonely, role is to be counter the self indulgent culture and get the organisation to be a realistic and useful addition to Europe's effectiveness rather than a huge financial and administrative drag on all it does. Does Asia lumber itself with such a cumbersome overarching, controlling and initiative,- stifling burocracy? No.

-The ongoing sad saga of Syria with the added complication of Gaza continues to goad western, and particularly British , consciences to "do something about it". But what? With whom? How? America is weary of the Middle East and  (New)Obama has clearly said that its real foreign policy interests are clearly in Asia. They are certainly not going to put boots on the ground and nor should anyone else. Nor will America rein in Israel as they should have done decades ago. That tail will continue to wag the dog. In Syria the multiplicity of factions and the lack of a clearly desirable, nice, clean, human rights orientated potential victor means that although it is different to Afghanistan there is nothing any military intervention is going to get other than a good hiding. The policy therefore has to continue with the diplomacy, probably unsuccessfully , and meanwhile to work with the country's neighbours to do everything possible to ease the humanitarian crisis by building and supplying (temporary) refugee camps along the borders.

-The penny or cent is slowly beginning to drop in some places that many so called eco-friendly policies of using only renewable sources for fuel and power generation are far from being what they claim and come at a massive price. Converting power stations to wood burning has to be lunacy. They do not carefully consume handfuls of sticks gathered in from the nearest woodlands. They gulp down piles of wood,- every hour, night and day. Wood doesn't renew itself in a few days. It takes years. That means that to meet eco targets we would have to cut down practically every rainforest on the face of the globe,- and still not have enough wood. The results would include extensive desertification and world food shortages. Eco? Good for mankind? No. Hideously expensive and self defeating? Yes.

- Moves in the UK to speed up and simplify planning approvals, particularly for strategic infrastructure projects, are being noisy resisted by countless "Say No To...." groups.  It isn't that hearings are being abolished. Nor are appeals on the way out. It's simply proposed that those be reduced to to from the current four. Similarly the ability to demand judicial reviews of almost anything the government proposes to do /has done is also under question. The reviews aren't being abolished, just reined in so that the government is more free to do what it was elected to do,- get on and do the things necessary to run the country now and in the future. That does not seem unreasonable in the face of UK's visible slide from sclerosis into paralysis.

-Talking of sclerosis, the Sunday Times reports that poor old diarist Samuel Pepys had to spend a whole Saturday in the 1760s producing a report on how to sort out the naval dockyards at Portsmouth. A whole Saturday for one man!  That's not bad compared to the 3 years Sir Howard Davies , working with countless others, has been given to come up with (another) review of UK airports policy. The reality, -as many know,- is that the recommendations of this group could be produced at the end of a single day spent in some gloomy hotel basement by a gathering of real aviation experts. They might lack a few of the minutae, minutes of meetings with newt conservationists, badger protection groups and others but they would on a few flipcharts converted into a plain old fashioned Powerpoint presentation knocked up by a couple of young grads in the teabreak simply and clearly declare the obvious. As it is, the 3 year study, due for mid 2015 ,is in the best British tradition likely to simply form the basis for..... further discussion and consultation. Stretch , yawn and  the popping of more corks in Amsterdam and Paris.

Footnote: The Roskill Commission  thoroughly investigated the airports question and came up with the answer in 1973. According to 7 commissioners who did not live in Buckinghamshire ,the best alternative to Heathrow ( seen then as an addition to , not a replacement for it) is at Wing/Cublington in Buckinghamshire. The 8th member, who lived in Buckinghamshire, dissented and,- won. The answer still is correct. Apart from leaving it where it is at Heathrow, the right place for London's primary hub airport would be Wing/Cublington ,nicely situated between London and the large population areas around the south midlands and Birmingham. It could even be linked to the much objected-to new HS 2 high speed rail line. That would allow both "Say No To..." protest groups to be rolled into one. A big cost saving for the protest groups. Buckinghamshire County Council is already spending six figure sums of taxpayers' money on fighting HS2 or at least its preferred route through the "influential" mid Chiltern corridor. They would though probably consider more favourably an alternative, more southerly, route closer to where many more but much less "influential" people live. That's the reality of local "democracy". There aren't too many celebreties, retired actors, barristers and the like in High Wycombe. 

The US Election goes to the wire.

With just 24 hours to go before those who haven't already voted go to the polls at least everyone seems to agree that this one will go to the wire and a photofinish, followed maybe by days of legal wrangling to. Nothing other than an orderly world ever seems to be bad news for lawyers.

There is though a feeling that Obama will just about squeeze home. He's made it more difficult for himself by that one slip,- his disastrous, lacklustre performance in the first televised debate with Romney. Maybe one day we will know why he allowed himself to perform so badly. Exhaustion goes with the job and electioneering in particular so it's no excuse.

His victory would be partly because most people approve of the way he has handled the aftermath to Sandy ("God's indicator" say some) but it would probably be more because of the way the Electoral College works. There are many websites which explain this, one being http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012 elections electoral college map.html;.

There are more paths to victory for Obama than for Romney although if Romney won all the states that Bush gained in 2000 he would have a much bigger victory due to changes in population. If though he wins those states but loses Ohio he loses. That's one reason why everyone will be watching Ohio.

It is quite possible that Obama will win the Presidency though with fewer votes than Romney . That's what happened in 2000 in Bush v Gore when Gore won more votes overall.

If it does turn out that way the Republicans may be very sore losers and, with a continuing majority in the House of Representatives/Congress , they may make life even more difficult for Obama in his second term.

Either way the next President is going to have to make some very tough choices. It might,- as in the UK in 2010, be easier for the losers.


Andrew Lloyd-Williams.

A bit breezy in East Coast USA.- Hurricane Sandy gatecrashes the election circuses.

Reports from our eastern seaboard Twiga a little south of where Hurricane Sandy is forecast to do its worst indicate that it's getting a bit breezy.

It is, he says, "pretty foxy of the Democrats to rustle up a megastorm to convince voters that eliminating all government spending and letting everyone fend for themselves is not a good idea. This will be particularly so if the storm produces a predicted $3.2 million catastrophe.

One more humorous effect may be that if there are widespread power losses, the Presidential campaigns will be hard pressed to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars they have amassed for the last week's advertising. They seem to brush aside the notion that the electors may have seen enough already and are unlikely to be swayed by more TV commercials at this stage. Up to now it has been spend, spend, spend, a policy which should at least have taken advertising agencies out of the financial downturn. This incontinent fruit machine  behaviour may though be less attractive to those who want to see budget defecits reduced.

Meanwhile both Presidential hopefuls will be in front of their mirrors rehearsing expressions of relief, joy, anguish or despair, one or more of which to be wheeled out depending on what Sandy actually does. They might be a useful rehearsal for when the election results are announced too. There's an efficient use of time for you.

Once the storm and the election are over ,life in the US may seem rather flat and dull . After all the excitement that may be something to add to the things for which to give thanks at the forthcoming national turkeyfest.  

The clocks go back- and winter (democratic) gloom sets in.

Afraid to upset the few inhabitants of the far north of Scotland lest they vote for "Uhuru" or "Independence" in the same way as restive folk in the more distant colonies in the 1950s and 60s, the ever courageous UK government has quietly shelved any talk of retaining year-round BST, British Summer Time. The cost is estimated to be high, but what the hell, why modernise when you can stay still or even move backwards?

As result, from this evening , or rather afternoon, the British nation faces gathering gloom from not long after lunch to dampen its already not very high spirits. "Mustn't grumble" is the old favourite response . This of course means we will do exactly that in spades. (That's linguistic guidance for mystified foreigners,.-especially those who say what they mean.). UK plc needs every ounce of productivity and good cheer that it can muster but is the country up for it? The answer looks rather like a big fat, even obeise, "No".  Most are agreed that manpower intensive infrastructure projects building things to meet current and future needs are an excellent way out of recession. The only thing is that the hint of a new bypass to prevent locals from choking to death raises an immediate "Say No To...." campaign. This weekend there is a whole nationwide conference to educate people in how to oppose and obstruct any road project, however large or small. To be successful, competitive , open for business or just to get people where they want to go we need more runways for London, more and improved roads and an additional railway line to the north. Much of the response takes us back to the 1880s (Say No To the Great Western/Central/Northern/Eastern Railway) and all those jolly demos and scowling aristocrats defending the boundaries of their estates. Localised and parochial democracy is all very well, but.........Anyway, we will eventually get some good things done although at huge extra  cost and after delays which will leave us trailing behind our competitors. Never mind. In the meantime we can spend our Sunday evenings watching Downton Abbey and then exporting it to the USA. That should bring in a few dollars. Our democracy's OK then.

Meanwhile across the Atlantic those who haven't followed Obama's lead and voted early are into the final run in to the Presidential Election. To most foreigners the whole American democratic process is difficult to believe. The contestants spend the year- and now over $100 billion between them- in the warm up. The mud that used to be slung manually and the promises that used to be made verbally are now largely conveyed electronically and on billboards. Mass gatherings, huge auditoriums complete with leaping cheerleaders and slick haired orators (well, OK , Obama's hair isnt so slick though it is greying as befits a President) gather pace leading up to the big day while the normal functioning of government and decision making is suspended for a good six months before and at least another one ot two after the event. The winner then has just 2 years until the mid term elections. Campaigning for those starts a little later, -maybe only six or nine months ahead. That means that the time for fulfilling all those pre-election dreams and promises can be as short as 15 months and certainly no more than 18. Once the mid-terms are over it is possible that the President then no longer has a majority in the Senate or Congress or both. In those events he or one day she (Hillary? You may have left it a bit late though Regan made it despite a one year older start) is either seriously impeded or totally stopped dead in their tracks. Then comes the bid for the second term in office,- by now just 2 years away. The serious bow wave for this starts 9 or even 12 months out, so not much time for changing the world in the meantime.  Come the new Presidential Election and the result, the whole process and fund raising for it starts all over again. If the incumbent has won a second term but still hasn't a majority in the Senate and /or Congress he/she is faced with another four years of misery and a feeling of being bound head and foot. In the worst case (the loss of majority in the first mid term elections ) and assuming the President gets two terms that means that he/she has just those first 15-18 months out of the whole 4 years to do anything. It's and amazing process and reality.  That's where their democracy is.

While Americans may ponder that last question, things aren't looking too good for individual freedom, choice or leadership in the other 2 global powers either. The Russian top tier,- namely President Putin,- feels so threatened by the antics of a couple of young ladies entertainingly questioning the status quo that it has had them sentenced to two years in  two diabolically grim prison camps in the wastelands far to the east of Moscow well out of reach of their friends and families and any contact with the world. This evilly disproportionate reaction by the regime to an expression of dissent/disagreement is frightening. Any governmemt which actually doesn't like sections of its own citizens is disturbing and those which behaves like a thug is terrifying. Logic would say that Putin would not want to risk Russia's standing in the world by simple brutality to groups and individuals.  Unfortunately for the imprisoned ladies the only logic being employed here is the old sledghammer totalitarian one of making them a terrifying example to discourage others from expressing what many fellow Russians feel. The ability of the two to mentally and physically survive their terms in prison amongst both the prison authorities and some of their well chosen fellow prisoners is far from certain. Partly because of the US election and others reluctance to offend the Russian bear , the world has been deafening silent, -and totally neglectful,- on the whole affair. No cheer for democracy there.

Moving further east, -it's new chairs time in the other megapower,-China. They don't do elections but there is some kind of process by which rival contenders are selected or select themselves as the top dogs.  It can involve the sudden fall or disgrace of one or more who might be in the frame. Some self destruct . The killing of a British businessman by one powerful clique who thought themselves above the law was a major mistake . It has cost Mr Bo any chance of anything but incarceration and possibly execution . Once someone is down the instincts of any rival politician are to stand on their stomach or shoulders to ensure they stay there.( Yes, it happens here too,- you've noticed?). That little episode apart, although personal freedoms and choice in spheres other than politics have improved enormously  in China over the past 20 years,  political democracy is a long way off.

Interestingly all three of the world's major powers have one thing in common. In each of them the military is extremely powerful. Now that really is worrying.  It all makes our weekly Prime Ministers Questions look like a shining beacon for freedom in a world of democratic paralysis or repression.  Get worried when Dave asks Ed to step outside "for a little chat".

UK politics,- Why the ( actually quite successful) Tory Party isn't smiling.

Britain's Conservative Party should be riding high in the poll ratings just now. In the last fortnight it has booted out Abu Hamza, kept in Gary McKinnon who the US wanted to extradite, announced improvements in job creation (above US levels), falling hospital waiting list times, better crime figures while other figures indicate the end of double dip recession if it ever happened at all. September government borrowing was down on last year too. All good stuff which should be causing Tory smiles and further lengthening the habitually miserable faces of the opposition.

Why then have the Tories lost another few percentage points in the opinion polls and why is HerMajesty's opposition getting away with accusing the government of being incompetant, chaotic, out of touch and Prime Minister David Cameron weak?

First offender is the party's hopelessness at PR and presenting its case, especially when it has a good one.  Right from the beginning in May 2010 its programme of expenditure "cuts" mislabled as "austerity" was never explained simply and coherantly as part of an overall political philosophy of smaller, though still by no means small, government and the encouragement of a return to self reliance and self respect after decades of increasing ever deepening welfare and government spending dependency. There has never been an all-embracing wrapper in which to enfold all its policies as a coherent whole. Instead too much has appeared uncordinated, piecemeal and reactive rather than visionary. Indeed the word "vision" or notion of "This is where we are going" has been entirely absent . That fact does reflect a failure by the Prime Ministerial team to grasp the basics of winning in politics,- or business,-or more or less anything else.

Second offender is the difficulty of being in a coalition, especially with an increasingly difficult and fractious partner, many of whose members would rather be in bed with the opposition. The LibDems are  often, despite their label, extraordinarily illiberal and intolerant, two things which make them much closer to Labour than Conservative ways of life. Cameron has tried hard to bend to give Clegg some much needed successes to show his party but this has not been greatly appreciated or reciprocated. Cameron has also been straightforward about what he can't deliver,-eg House of Lords reform. In response Clegg has been petulant and is set to derail much needed previously agreed and entirely democratic constituency boundary changes and size equalisation before the 2015 General Election.

Third offender and strategicaly the most potent is Labour's brilliance at picking and repeating ad nauseam over and over again at every opportunity and in all sorts of contexts key dog-whistle words which over time take root consciously and subliminally and become accepted as fact.  All of its team use the same key words in almost every statement they make. It's an old advertising trick which the Tories , especially the many with a background in PR , should have identified and dealt with but haven't. The tactic is ruthlessly and lethally deployed all the time every week. Brown tried it but failed because he picked strangulated phrases which achieved no resonance. Eds Miliband and Balls, Mrs Balls and the rest are politically cleverer and more succinct. "Out of touch" is a wonderful class loaded phrase with unspoken addon implications about competance, caring, and not sharing the national pain. "Incompetant" has all the subtlety and the menace of an Exocet missile, "For the few not the many" wraps in tax cuts for the better off and so on. Each MP acts as if they have a  laminated card with the word(s) of the year, month,week in big bold capitals. They are relentlessly deployed so that they appear to be part of a coherent, consistent platform of opposition. Once up and running they displace the need to do anything about expounding any policies .This enables that powder to be kept dry until close to the next election when emotions are up and running and it becomes too late to examinefor them to be thoroughly examined and for rational judgements to be made away from the immediate battlefield. The whole dog-whistle concept and well cordinated practice is a wonderful trap for the government and electorate alike.

Fourth offender is an example of the success of the third and the unashamed class warfare platform so beloved of  Labour Party's main financial sponsors the unreconstituted unions . It is willingly adopted by the ever scowling Ed Miliband. "We are not all in this together" feeds through to an unspoken subtext of "We are victims of the wicked rich and unfeeling upper classes" which in turn , aided by a media always on the hunt for blood and increased sales, fuels hysteria about anything from a Minister who foolishly swears at an unhelpful policeman to the Chancellor seen , shock , horror, travelling in a First Class seat on Standard Class ticket on which his aides have already set about paying the upgrade fee. George Osborne is number 2 in the government. We should be delighted that he is travelling in a comfortable seat. Whether you like him or not he deserves it for spending his life on the underpaid and thankless job he's doing . Sadly unless he's a footballer, lottery winner, or X-factor contestant he is deemed not to be worthy of this more comfortable ride. The politics of envy are close to those of hatred and very dangerous .Amongst other things , particularly to young and impressionable minds ,they plant the notion that real aspiration and success are somehow antisocial and undesirable and at very least attract approbrium. To the Left that may be good. They do well where there is lack of success and government/welfare dependency. They use the class ticket with corrosive and devastating effect to gain votes.  The fact that the whole philosophy may discourage able young people from striving to better themselves and reach their full potential and , horror of horrors, even become rich, is of no interest to them. That's what they are about. Their message not that we are all in it together but "bar the rich , we are all victims together". It is is,-for them, -brilliant . For the Tories who haven't got the heavy guns to cope with it, it's currently election-threatening.

The Conservatives'  recent successes aren't getting the acknowledgment they deserve. For them they should be on a high or at least the up but thanks to a mix of the four factors above they have been submerged beneath a string of class war nonsenses which have got out of proportion and out of hand.  The relentless street fighters opposite are highly successful in peddling theie corrosive messages. The Tories are poor at getting theirs across and giving as good as they get.  To win in 2015 the Tories must get much better at the real rough and tumble of strategic and tactical politics . They must become streetwise and develop much better antennae and depth of feeling for and understanding of what is really going on and being said throughout the country at all levels of society. They could also do everyone a favour by dopping the Yah- Boo stuff of the weekly Prime Ministers' Questions knockabout . Once quite amusing (when it was a cleverer battle of wits) ,it has descended into being tedious. The fact is that theTory party and particularly the rather cosy and too exclusive Number 10 inner circle are being seriously outplayed by the hardened bruisers sitting opposite. The polls are showing it.

That's why the Tory Party isn't smiling. Except for Boris of course. He is and he's winning.  As a parting thought, could there be a direct relationship between the two things? Smile=winner/win. Frown=loser/lose? That's a different debate though. We'll come back to that.

A view from America: Does it really matter who wins the Presidential Election?

American voters are almost unanimously critical of the negative campaign advertisements, the exaggerations and plain "untruths" put out by both parties.  In the critical "swing" states, such as Ohio, Florida and Virginia, regular commercial advertising on TV has almost given way to political ads, not only by the campaigns themselves, but also by the hugely funded and anonymous "superPACs" legitimized by the Supreme Court in January 2010.

But the voters should really look to themselves for the solution.  Much of the voters' vocal criticisms are directed only towards the candidate they oppose.  They legitimize their own candidate's retorts as a necessary response to the other side.  Only when the voters make it clear that they will express their dissatisfaction at the polls will the practice change.

In the first presidential debate, most viewers were surprised -- not only by the strong performance by Mitt Romney, but even more by the lacklustre performance by Obama.  Some suggest that it could prove to be a game changer unless Obama puts up a stellar showing in the next two debates.

But, as Romney denies having the $4.8 trillion tax plan that he has been touting for months, denies that he will eliminate key portion of Obamacare -- the bill he promised to repeal on Day One of his presidency, and confuses everyone as to his real stand on abortion, one has to wonder what sort of Trojan Horse a Romney presidency would really be.  Perhaps he would be better placed as Harvard's Chairman of the new Department of Voodoo Maths.

Never wanting to miss an opportunity to capitalize on the country's misfortunes, Romney is pouring relentless criticism on the Administration for the terrorist attack in Benghazi.  This, despite the fact that Republicans cut $280 million from the funds requested by the Obama Administration for the protection of overseas diplomatic missions.  Romney portrays Obama's reluctance to start another war or two as a sign of global US weakness. Perhaps the greatest sign of US weakness though is the inability for the two sides to reach agreement on almost anything -- including whether the US should even continue to pay its debts.

In spite of all of this, we can expect most voters to make their decision based on who they think will do most to improve their personal economic situation.  Romney promises tax cuts -- but backtracks to say that this is only to the extent that he can close loopholes and increase growth to pay for them.  Given that when it comes to growth, the US economy is a "supertanker" and not a "speed boat", and he has not yet mentioned any loopholes he will close, it is a sure bet that the tax cuts will either not happen or will add even more to the burgeoning US deficit.  Add his proposed additional $2 trillion in military spending (to support a war against Iran?), and it seems a sure bet that the US will be borrowing more from China -- if Xi Jinping or whoever takes the helm in China will let them.

The US national debt now stands at more than $16 trillion -- or over $50,000 per man, woman or child.  That's a scary thought to many, and is often used to bludgeon Obama's policies over the past four years.  But much of the increase is due to unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to large tax cuts implemented by Bush and extended by Obama while Congress held other programs hostage.  But how worried should people really be?  Are we really depriving future generations?  After all, we can hardly consume what hasn't yet been produced.  And we are not going to populate the housing stock after death.  In reality, most of the debt is owned within the US and will only serve to create a further imbalance in the distribution of wealth, adding to the pressure on the US to implement measures to "level the playing field".  More harm will inure to future generations if the US allows its infrastructure to crumble than will be done by increasing the national debt.  Moreover, investing in infrastructure, education and technology will create jobs and provide some of the growth that both parties desperately seek.

Even so, some 35% of the national debt is owned by other countries, such as China.  That is caused, not so much by government policies, as by US consumers anxious to find the best bargains regardless of the source.  Romney would like to declare China a "currency manipulator", for all the good that will do.  He could impose extra tariffs on imports from China, but that would just lead to inflation and to the sourcing of more expensive products from other countries.  It would take many years for US manfacturers to replace a significant portion of imports from China, and that is even assuming that they would risk doing so when a future government might reverse the policies.  At some point, the US will have to find a trade balance and even turn the tide to start paying off some of the debt plus interest, but that can only be good for the US job market.  Otherwise the free markets that Romney embraces will fix the problem anyway -- as countries shun the US dollar because of US credit downgrades, its value will fall, imports will become more expensive and exports cheaper.

The US system of government all but guarantees gridlock these days so the choice of the next US president is not as important as it seems.  The race for the democrats to retain control of the Senate may be at least as important and, with icreasing use of filibusters, even that may not be so important.  The US economy is a giant supertanker and the appointment of the next captain won't make as much difference as many expect.  After November 6, all eyes will turn to China.

alw

Scotland to go or not to go?- Why Cameron will sleep easy tonight.

The joint Cameron/Salmond agreement on the Scottish independence referendum contains no surprises although at first glance it may seem that Cameron has been outplayed by Salmond . After all, the Scot has got all he demanded and only conceeded in agreeing that there should only be one question and no easy midway option. It will be a simple Yes/No vote in which the winner takes all.

On the face of it that looks like a big gamble by Cameron, maybe a reckless one. Was it ?

 The big deal today was winning the argument that there should be only one, yes/no question. This was vital  as it leaves the electorate with no easy option and the SNP nowhere to go if they lose the vote. It may look like an ill considered and desparate throw of a gambler , but is it and does it matter to Dave if the referendum does go Salmond's way and Scotland heads off over whichever horizon it chooses?
To reach a conclusion let's look at the other points coming out of the signed document  .Salmond seemed to win them all and he was certainly smiling.

-The date of Autumn 2014 could work in Salmond's favour. The vote may well immediately follow the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. If those are anywhere near as succesful as the London Olympics and Scots rally behind them in a state of national positivism and feelings of unity there could be a wave of nationalistic "Go for it" euphoria. Plenty for Salmond to gain  here and Cameron can only lose.

- Giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds is unprecedented in UK elections. You may be able to marry at 16 and repent at leisure but your brain isn't deemed to be adequately developed to make judgments on politics and your MP. The failure rate of mid-teenage marriages may well say the voting age of 18 is indeed correct and proves the point. However, particularly younger voters tend to be idealistic and  therefore more likely to vote for independence in Scotland and for left leaning candidates in other elections. Potential double loss to Cameron.

So assuming Cameron hasn't been totally rolled over, what could he be thinking?

- The Scots will vote against independence however Salmond loads the dice so the man may as well be given all he wants so that he has nowhere hide afterwards.

-Despite the posturing, it doesn't matter to the Conservatives if Scotland does become independent. There could actually be at least two bonuses for the party. Firstly, without its traditional Scottish rock solid Labour-voting constituencies, Labour may never again be able to obtain an overall majority at Westminster .Secondly, economically the rest of the UK would be without its heavily welfare and state spending dependent northern neighbour.

-Even if the voting age in all other elections were reduced to 16, the number of additional constituencies gained by Labour would nowhere near cover their losses of Scottish seats, so the Conservative position at Westminster would at least be substantialy enhanced.

This all gives the agreement a different complexion. Despite the unionist posturing the Conservative leadership and policymakers may not mind whether the electorate choose independence or not. Either way the party wins. Either the Tories will have taken the long running issue by the scruff of the neck, put everything on the line and won , thereby kicking the SNP into the wilderness (for which Labour would also be duly grateful)  and coming out of it heroically just a few months before the 2015 General Election. Alternatively if the outcome is independence there are big gains for the party in the new makeup of Westminster. That's called a win-win.

All clear now?  Whatever the outcome,the champagne will be cracked open at Number 10 when the referendum results are announced on that night or day in the autumn of 2014. So simple. Cameron will not be losing any sleep tonight.

The ( Party Conference) Carnival is over. Where are we all now?

The end of the Conservative Party Conference on Wednesday marked the end of this season , another parliamentary break between the brief return of most MPs from the summer hols and the start of the autumn term session proper. It all began with the shadow Labour Party, alias the TUC,meeting for their miserabalist few days of class warfare and boss-baiting and hating, moved through the LibDems self entramelling gathering in Brighton and then on to the launch of New Ed in rainswept Manchester and finally Dave's response to it all in Birmingham.

The slab faced TUC and the dancing in the daisies LibDems have already largely been forgotten, if they were ever remembered. They had some similarities, embracing as they did class war heavy (TUC) and class war lite (LibDems) . The LibDems come across as nicer but in reality are barely less intolerant of anything contrary to or questioning of their tangled and self-strangling roots in illiberalism curiously peddled as liberalism. Many of their delegates seemed to see a permanent role as a component of coalitions , preferably of the left. This capitalises on the possibility that most of the uncommitted electorate would rather vote "none of the above" if offered the option.

In Manchester Ed did well in establishing a sort of weird credibility that he could, just could, be a possible future Prime Minister . Of the three main party leaders he made the most upward and forward progress. A week ago it looked as if that might set Dave an almost unanswerable problem, but in fact he handled the situation well and in the only way he could. He doesn't do evangelical peppered with photo op  pictures of glistening eyes, outstretched arms and raised head. That's all for the better as the stomach soon begins to churn if faced with too many of those. He told it straight; "We are in the poo, more poo than we had dared imagine when we took over from the 2 Eds and their master, Gordon, and it's going to take a while longer to sort it, but sort it we will." Sub themes were that he wasn't into class warfare but would prefer things which may seem to be restricted to the "privileged" to be available to all. Thus the local sink comp should be as good as Eton. No shortage of aspiration then.

Now as the dust settles, what were the main takeways from these gatherings?

First of all they have become a series of pre-vetted and pre-scripted corporate style presentations and are the duller for that. As result much public interest in them has gone and most people see only the few highlight clips on the early evening and 10 o'clock national TV news programmes.

The big thing though was that none of the three party leaders came across as inhabitants of planet earth. None seem capable of normal conversation or empathy. All fail the simple test of "Could they really sit in a pub/cafe/train or bus (would they be there in the first place?) and have a real and comfortable, enquiring, non patronising or lecturing conversation with whoever they sat down next to?" or "Would you enjoy a relaxed hour or two with them anywhere at any time of the day just chatting about life, realities, ideas or would they even have any real interest in so doing?" The answers have to be "No". They are just not , despite their differences,the sort of people most would really enjoy spending time with. None of them has shown one iota of a "wow" factor , nor do any go anywhere near producing a "I'll follow that person" response. There was and is not one iota of charisma or sign of good old fashioned leadership ability between them.  At the conferences there was no big vision but a lot of divisive "Yah boo" stuff about wealth and class.  That gets boring. There was no willingness to accept social realities,-eg  that there are many who do milk the welfare system which in its present form is unaffordable anyway or that tax dodging isn't the preserve of the rich and wealth is not a sin. There are many well off people who do pay vast amounts of taxes, do good things and are worthy job-creating citizens. There are also millions of less well off people who do work hard for small rewards who resent carrying the freeloaders about which politicians, unions and councils tend to be in denial.

To cap it all, none of the Big Three display any credible warmth or humour. To most they just aren't likeable people. There's little trust either.

The danger of this disconnect between leading politicians and their electorate is a continuing lessening of general interest in politics. This in turn can only impact on the quality of parliamentary candidates, already unimpressive in some cases. That has serious implications for a robust British democracy.

That leaves the door wide open for someone to seize the moment ,walk confidently and cheerfully onto the stage, sweep all the rubbish, indecision and prevarication aside ,talk plain interesting and even entertaining English , ram home a few truths and run off with the ball.
Regardless of other possible perceived flaws, the chances are enough of the the voters would say "Yes,- lead us!"

Hello Boris? Never say never.

Health Warning: Mitt ventures into Foreign Policy.

Mr Romney, not well known for his knowledge,experience of or travels in the world outside the USA has broken cover and spoken on his foreign policy, something of little or zero interest to his domestic audience . Having said that, the general message that the country will "kick ass" (more or less any ass will do as world geography, politics or history is not a strong point in most American schools) is always a nice goodie to throw into any electioneering speech on how the nation will hold its head high in any given future.

His proposal is simple. "America will get more involved in the Middle East".

Head for the shelters everyone.

All to play for in Birmingham: The UK's Party Conference Season moves into final week.

We've had the LibDems in windswept, rainswept Brighton two weeks ago, Old Labour in Manchester for what must have seemed a very long time (though for the diehards and union carthorses 5 days of vitriol and class war maybe isn't enough?) to anyone with active brain cells and any feeling at all in their rear ends. This week it is the turn of the Tories to gather in Birmingham. Any shindig that starts on a chilly grey autumnal Sunday afternoon, the nadir of any week to many, can only improve. Probably they all did once the attendees had forgotten they would rather be somewhere else , moved their mental location to somewhere off the face of the planet and settled down to the serious business of heavy drinking and "networking", the latter taken very seriously by some. To capitalise on this fact of life the appropriate washroom vending machines will have been  kept well stocked throughout.

The choice of venues is always significant. For the LibDems, Brighton, just 60 minutes from London by eco train, once doyen of the seaside resorts and by far the most acceptable to the socially aware and liberally  minded citizens of the capital, is a natural.  There's the backdrop of a grey sea, a broken down pier but an everlasting hope of revival being just around the corner. When the conference hall became just too dull  there were plenty of good whinging, plotting or just "networking" pubs just around the corner .For Labour there is a vintage grey afternoon's afternoon experience to be had in post industrial revolution Manchester. While there is plenty of brass in and around the city , there is also a died in the wool hard core of socialism , a history of "struggle" and a conviction that all ills stem from a certain Margaret Thatcher. It is a city where Tory canvassers may as well not bother to tread, so very few do.  A great place to gather in a converted disused railway station and ,like it, recall glories past before moving on to the future. In Labour's case this is to be about "One Nation" a worthy slogan theoretically all inclusive. But wait a moment, this is a Labour conference, not a "we love everybody " session. They don't . Most of those in the hall are included in the deadly embrace but many, many, others are not. The class enemies of the (always filthy) rich, the middle classes, Tories and countless others are definately not "One Nation". Indeed they'd better watch out as the Peoples' Utopia rolls its tumbrils in. Ed got away with it pretty well unchallenged though.


The Conservatives chose their progressive northern outpost of Birmingham. To many of them it is "the North". They lack a concept of "Midlands" and beyond this city memories of junior school maps begin to fade into "Here be Savages" territory.  To go there invokes a feeling of slight risk, something to be mentioned with modest pride over dinner parties. One has gone over the northern rim of the Cotswolds and descended into more dangerous territory. Making the journey shows though that one isn't just an inner M25 southerner.It's good for the soul. If all goes wrong it's only a short drive back to Chipping Norton, Cotswold cottages or a dash down the M1 back to the comforting sign "Watford-1 mile" and that warm, comforting ,"We're nearly home" feeling.

The LibDems in Brighton seemed to just come and go. Did it actually happen? Allegedly they gathered. Vince said his bit about not bidding for the leadership, heaven forbid, but if on the other had he were by popular demand press ganged and propelled towards the chair , well far be it for him to go against the wishes of the masses etc etc. No surprise there. Typical of general LiDem mental circuitry problems was their debate on airport capacity in the south east ( for which one may as well read "the world"). You can join the thought process almost anywhere on the cycle/circle but once you're into it there's no possibility of a conclusion.  It goes something like: " We don't like Heathrow/flying at all/travelling at all/using fuel at all/.........We think Heathrow must close.........There can't be any additional runways....We could build a new airport somewhere else but it mustn't have more runways.........It mustn't be near anywhere, keep anyone awake, destroy the countryside, annoy people living in big towns,adversely affect birds, newts, wildflife... It mustn't need new roads or railways.............Oh..........................! Is that the bell for lunch? Apply the same formula and attendant list of "no gos" and you get an idea of the problem facing the party in hacking its way through an everlasting jungle of undergrowth and impossibility.

Then came Manchester. After dreary Brighton the media perked up at the prospect of a much more red and red meat occasion . Love of the Tories is fading so here was an opportunity for a relaunch of something, but what? It all started off with the chief financiers and holders of the 50% block vote, the legacy unions, reminding "Conference" that they remain the unsmiling boss. That's democracy for you. Nice people. There's not quite a stated "We know where you live" but one feels that's never far from the surface. Labour meetings may be a love-in for the faithful and the old party dynasties and families but for anyone their bouncers would keep or throw out there is no love at all. In a land where all sorts of expressions of hatred are actually illegal ,this is the only party where actual hatred of other groups is spoken of not only amongst the attendees but from the stage too. Ed came over strongly and very cleverly with his hijacked Disraelian  "One Nation" wraparound theme, something which the Tories inexplicably lack. He hit several sitting ducks as well as using favoured and highly effective dogwhistles. The Tories' vulnerabilities include social elitisim due to many of its leadership having similar top public school , Oxbridge and wealth credentials as well as questions about determination, competance,clarity, correctness of objectives  and tactics plus the ability to actually get things done. Miliband hit them all. The media liked it. Here at last is a chance of a frisky political winter after a dull summer of holidays, Olympics and a feeling of general well being,- not the sort of stuff that sells papers. This is similar to the way they suddenly all lionsied Nick Clegg after the "I agree with Nick" TV debates before the May 2010 General Election.  Ten years earlier the Millenium Dome and celebrations were slagged off and panned after the press queued ,neglected  and champagnee deficient, at Stratford tube station on the night of 31st December 1999 . This week they almost universally and uncritically praised Ed's comeback kid performance to the skies. In so doing they chose to ignore the real huge divisiveness of what he said . They also skated over the almost total lack of any clues as to whether he actually had one about what to do if elected to office in 2015. The herd behaviour and lack of sanguine analysis is dismal. An old style editor or old fashioned university tutor would have sent their work back annotated-"No depth. Do it again".

Much of all this jumping about is aimed to raise the bar for Cameron's performances in Birmingham this week. The Tories didn't see Ed's success and rehabilitation coming. One has to ask why they failed so abjectly and whether they have the right sort of people scanning the 360 degree horizon . They seem to be no match for the Press wolves who are lying in wait, ambush even, and looking forward to a feast. It looks as if some P45s in Tory HQ would be in order.

The Conservative run up to Birmingham has not been impressive. They do not look well co-ordinated, disciplined or together. Why the banana skins of a Minister, ten days into his job, uttering non approved views about changes to the abortion law,the various disagreements and fiascos in the Ministry of Transport? All these things give credance to at least those Labour shrieks about managerial competance and a shambles. How can a party, up against it in the polls, come out of a long summer break rocking about so badly? We've said it before but it's time for the top to get a grip on it all, and to sort out the party machinery and its people.

There is every likelihood that the conclusion at the end of the conference season will be that Ed was the winner, Dave didn't hack it and Nick,- well what happened in Brighton? The media objective will be to rack up the idea that the 2015 election, still 2 and a half years away, is game on and Ed M the likely next PM. If this took root  it would lead to 2+ years of artificially generated US-style hype .Apart from being tedious this could be counter productive. We might all get heartily fed up with it, especially with the institutionally left-leaning BBC peddling its wares .That's not good for political debate or democracy.

All to play for in Birmingham then. Twiga will be munching on it. Maybe a thorn tree would be nicer.

Survey sets London's men a poser.

The Evening Standard reports today that a survey reveals that a survey into obeisity amongst London's men says that a third are unable to see their own genitals. Does that mean they are too large or too small?  

Labour Conference theme: "Rebuilding Britain"..........

...........a bold proposition festooned around the Manchester conference centre this week.

Putting aside the uneasy feeling that we might hear more about taking Britain apart , especially bankers and  the wealthy who are obviously all evil, don't pay taxes and don't deserve their money unless they won it on a talent show or are footballers, this headline surely invites the retort :"Who wrecked it" in the first place. The stock answer from the main perpetrators will be the usual "Bankers, Lehman Bros " etc but however much they duck or deny the issue the reality is that UK plc was already in dead trouble before the banking crisis simply because since prudence was forsaken in 2000, Brown and Blair, had been on a massive binge for which they and their succesors remain largely unrepentant.

A new opportunity now opens up for the Conservatives to pick up a similar but different ball labelled "Redesign Britain" . Ed Balls' promised root and branch spending review were he to get into power opens the way to this far more than it does to rebuilding something that in many ways wasn't working very well anyway. As  union-entramelled Ed Miliband doesn't look like picking that one up, the way is clear for Cameron & Co to say (silently) "Thanks Ed " and regain the initiative.

Will they? Won't they? Come on Dave. Time to revitalise the troops and lead a new "Get a Grip" version of his party into real thinking.......and action. There is a nation of bored, distrustful (of all politicians) and sceptical voters out there waiting for someone to pick up this sort of ball and run forwards, not backwards as Miliband Minor promises.

Ed Balls grabs the agenda by the...........

With this weekend's Labour Party delegates limbering up for their outing to Manchester, Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor and Shadow Leader of the Opposition (Yes, other Ed there is one ) has decisively laid out his stall.

Far from the Old Labour and unions' desire to pledge to abandon cuts and to return to a life of profligate borrowing and spending , Mr Balls has broken cover and declared that he intends to go into the 2015 election committed to a "ruthless" approach to public spending, to conduct a root and branch review of what is spent and how from the bottom up as opposed to the historic  pruning across across all departments with all apart from a handful of protected ones sharing the pain regardless of their need and effectiveness. He promises that he will "examine every penny" spent and will "face harsh truth" .This is a politically brilliant manoeuvre It heads forms a powerful and attractive agenda and is exactly what the coalition (ie Tories) should have done on day 1 in May 2010. It now heads off any similar initiative by them of at the pass. Mr Balls has got there first and is waiting for them. Across the board cutting has been a feature of both government and private businesses. It is always a mistake as it means that the lean and efficient suffer more than the inefficient and numerically bloated.  Bad behaviours are seen to be rewarded and even prudent in terms of corporate empires. Unimportant activites are treated in the same way as the important or vital . The customer is made to share the pain of the staff , quality is made to take its share of the cuts and so on so that at least all empoyees and the unions can feel that it is "fair". It is actually both stupid and unfair and longer term threatens  to bring down the whole business or government department.

What Mr Balls has recognised,-as intelligent and clear thinking politicians of all parties, civil servants and business people should have done long ago ,-is that a review of  the design and costs of activity is done from the bottom up with a clean sheet of paper there will  be a very different conclusion of what is possible and at what price than if it is doine top down on a  "fair to all" cost reduction/trimming basis. That is why Britain's new car industry, based on Japanese systems and automation ,has succeeded while the old one has died. The same is evident in the success and growth  of low cost airlines against the largely stagnant or declining old fashioned legacy bretheren with all their historic baggage. It's common in a whole range of businesses crying out for reform  and modernisation. A new start is much easier than reshaping an old organisation. The Labour Party itself has recent and ongoing experience of that reality.

Full marks then to the unlikely persona of Mr Balls for saying loud and clear that he would have to continue with the Tory cuts in a post 2015 Labour government and , much more important and revolutionary, will carry out this comprehensive review within a year.(Plse note this Dave, -you have just given your urgent review of just one subject -airport capacity,- THREE years to report back). With this move he is moving out of the minutiae of  piecemeal political wrangling and posturing into big sky thinking.

It's a very clever move. Why? Why now,- just ahead of both the Labour and Conservative Party Conferences?

First the Labour Conference. There it is hoped to begin the party's financial rehabilitation with the voters. Less of these than are given credit for it are actually stupid. Most realise that there have to be cuts, though not of course directly affecting themselves, who and wherever they are. Labour's continuing state of denial or at least delay are not going to get these peoples' votes and Ed Balls is recognising this. He is also recognising this as being a very good moment to start opening a visible gap between himself and the man who has the party leadership role he clearly wants. Ed Miliband owes his successful electoral fratricide to the unions. They are making it clear that they expect their pound or two of flesh. The GMB leadership in a pre Conference statement has said that Labour is out of touch with its historic (old fashioned) working class roots -ie turn away from any remaining New Labour fancy new friends . They are urging  Miliband , who will be in his almost constant mournful sharing everyone's pain mode and using the word "fairness" at ever turn next week. That will give Miliband a huge problem and unless he finds a source of new courage he will end up looking like a defecit denier while Ed Balls walks away with praise for tough love and facing the realities. Balls was always going to start turning the screw sometime before the election and it looks as if he has decided that the time is just about right to start now. If Miliband's ratings don't improve within the next year, there would just be time for a leadership contest and party recovery from that before the May 2015 General Election. Good thinking, strategy and tactics by Mr Balls.

Secondly why not kill two birds with one stone? By pinching what should be a Tory agenda just before the Tory Conference in ten days time, Mr Balls has walked off with what should be their ball. If they then promise to do something similar they will appear to be adopting a Labour initiative and Labour will capitalise on that by asking where the ideas of their own are. The Shadow Chancellor has caught the Conservative Party strategists (where are they?) have been caught very flat footed here and to be sure he is not one to resist all oportunities to rub their faces in it over the next two years.

Finally, while the other Ed yesterday again dived into the cornflakes, and surfaced with trademark miserabalist hangdog expression having found a new adversary in the (private)  pension funds and come up promising to share our pain and fight them to the etc etc......,Mr Balls has avoided such graunchy, heard-it-all-before negative stuff and gone for the big issue, another marker of clear blue water between the two men.

Good stuffing all round by Mr Balls. Game on.



   

Twerpspeak and Fudgespeak of the day. Stand up Andrew Mitchell and David Cameron.

How could a 21st century politician say it?  Probably one didn't,- it was a man of the 20th century and one from pretty early on  in it to boot.

Andrew Mitchell, new Government Chief Whip, is alleged to have called a policeman acting in the course of duty a "pleb" and according to one newspaper have advised him that he needed to "learn his f------ place".
If he did indeed say that firstly he is labelling himself as the ultimate vision of a Tory out of touch twerp, something which will delight the Labour Party always on the lookout for anything about class to exploit, and secondly it is a piece of advice he should address to himself,- and do something about it.

David Cameron's initial teflonesque comments that such an utterance was "wrong" started off on the right track and then dived into the awful all purpose hand wringing  fudgespeak of "appropriateness" by adding that it was "not appropriate". Maybe Eton's English department needs a bit of help in clarity and brevity from Lord Sugar. "You're fired " would have been much more appropriate. It would also demonstrated  firm,swift and unswerving resolve, three things the party greatly needs at this moment.

Mr Cameron could also do with a bit of that ancient piece tough love public school advice: "Get a grip man" and then do the necessary........ " Mitchell, you're fired".

Yuckspeak of the day... from Apple.

An Apple spokeswoman, talking about the serious defects in its new map service , is reported to have said:

"We appreciate all of the customer feedback and are working hard to make the customer experience even better".
= We know you have all been saying our map service is crap and we are trying to fix it".

Why must the customer always be having an experience? Even if they were, many would rather not.

A change of Season,- Olympic "Yes we can" to political "No you cant",- and other things around the world.

The calendar was right. The Paralympic closing ceremony and its inspirational sequel the following day just over a week ago when most of the British Olympic and Paralympic teams paraded through London marked the end to the country's truly remarkable summer. It has been memorable for its upbeat flavours, athletic, organisational and individual achievements in cheerfully delivering the Royal Jubilee, the Olympics and Paralympics. The role of the 70,000 volunteers who gave their time for free was truly amazing. They worked in scores of different activities, some requiring trained professionals and others enthusiatic amateurs ,all demonstrating what unstinting teamwork can achieve,- and without money having to be the motivator. The athletes gave wonderful performances, the choreography, electronic miracles of the ceremonies and the unseen strategic and on the day planning and operation superb. Above all it was a summer of good humour and positivism.

Happily the media attention given to all these things largely blanked out the contrasting  annual gathering in Brighton of the TUC brothers and sisters . For them all those people happily working for no money must have been hard for to bear. No claims of exploitation, demarcation disputes, squabbles over overtime, rest day working , "breaks" and suchlike must have been dreadful. Positivism, enthusiasm, going the extra mile.  Dreadful concepts for the gathered miserabalists. No wonder that they booed even Ed Balls for surprisingly telling them the horrible truth that money doesn't grow on trees and that they voted not for offering to help design new ways ahead but  instead to rush back to old ways backward . Strikes, a General Strike and even civil disobedience (aka riots ) , all hostile to those who prefer a normal life or need state run services ,are the delight of these throwbacks to the past . The union leaders and officials don't of course pay for "days of action" . Those who strike do but they are only the poor bloody infantry, the cannon fodder. Beware then, this miserable activists are back on the prowl again. Their agenda is simple. They don't like the current democratically elected government. They will not therefore do anything that could in any way make it-or the British economy,- successful. The interests of their members are not the drivers. Their ambitions to dictate political power are.

On the economic and political philosophy front, in a show of probably faux unity, the two Eds unveiled their latest fair society concept. In a breakaway from re-distribution of wealth idea the new idea hits your pockets even earlier,-before it's even got into them in fact. In the impact of squibs ratings this one didn't even hit "Damp" . It went straight into the "Soggy" or even "Dud" boxes.  The "policy" is called pre-distribution of wealth. Maybe it's a trial run for their Party Conference piece. If so they should reconsider the two man horse costume for bigger impact. It's there somewhere in the old dressing up box.

Meanwhile over in Conservative Party HQ there is a clear sense of dynamism , urgency and energy to  tackle the problem of Heathrow airport, currently the world's number one aviation hub, being fresh out of capacity. Clearly "something must be done" and a grip got on the situation FAST. The bold, courageous answer is to set up another Commission of Enquiry on the subject. Previous ones, all vetoed by a lethal mix of various party interests and sheer inaction lie somewhere on parliamentary shelves. Try reading the Roskill version of 1971 for an example. Again this time all possibilities will be considered ,-except the obvious, quickest and cheapest one delivered by private rather than public funds and requiring no big additional infrastructure. That's Heathrow's new third runway of course. To further demonstrate the government's resolve and determination to get to the answer and start building , the timescale requires an interim report on quick fixes by the end of next year , 2013, and the final report in as breathtakingly short timescale as 2015.  Given a task of this urgency any business would put together a group of top quality people, aided by consultants if necessary, and give them six months max,- or be fired.

One must not overlook the LibDems in this roundup of miscreants. Thanks to their petulant response to the ditching of their less- than- high- priority- in-the-scale-of- things  reform of the House of Lords , they have said they won't now stick with their previous agreement to support constituency reductions, boundary changes, and equalisation of voter numbers in time for the 2015 election. A highly undemocratic and illiberal cartwheel from folk who call themselves liberal , but did we really expect anything different, forward thinking and long term sensible?

Have we really got the politicians we deserve? Are we that bad?

Things haven't been too good in some other places either. Parts of the Arab world ( not all, BBC,not all) have seen riots and murders in response to an undoubtedly evilly intentioned video produced in the USA. While the video has been the catalyst, a whole host of issues are behind the anger both real and manufactured by antagonists to the west and to the USA in particular. Some of these antagonists are people to whom peace and stability , however much desired by the people ,are not useful .A highly unstable position has developed and been sharply demonstrated in Egypt, Libya and Yemen in particular. Syria was in turmoil  already so didn't need any additional fuel on the various flames. More fundamental  is that in this era of instant global communications there is a clash between those who believe in the rights of individuals to say, write, film ,publish or even think more or less anything they want and those who believe that there are substantial no-go areas. The test of "Does it give offence?" doesn't work. There are things in much of what is said and done in the world , or even next door, which can be interpreted this way by someone. The human race is going to have to either accept that and develop a thicker skin or turn the other cheek on occasions or accept very serious limitations on its freedoms.

South Africa is going through a bad patch too. The country needs inward investment, confidence in its ability to deliver and future political stability. A bitter inter-union dispute is being ruthlessly exploited by some politicians and used to urge workers into violence and making the mines, -for which you can read the country- "unmanageable. That isn't to say there aren't some real issues here but they are not political. Some are about wages which are undeniably low for what is an unpleasant and fundamentally dangerous job but most are about the failure of the government , the mining companies , business and industry to sweep away the deplorable , crowded , often violent and lawless living conditions in the mining and munciple townships. Tarmac roads, properly built houses, mains water and sewerage , electricity and community facilites are the basics . They are essential to head off a potential wave of future anger-driven mayhem. These things may be hugely expensive but the alternative is a national explosion and disaster somewhere down the line.

Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement took a bit of an unexpected bath in the former colony's part-way to- full- democracy elections. Overall it still commands the power to veto legislation but it was not a strong showing. Some of its problems are a lack of cohesion and strong popular leadership in its ranks and it will have to address these well before the next election in four years time. One nut to crack is the number of  very conservative less well educated ,poorer and old people who do not feel part of 21st century, fast moving, dealing and money making Hong Kong and whose natural habitat is therefore the pro-Beijing and mainland grouping. There are more of them than many might think. There are also a lot more greater China or at least keep-Beijing happy enthusiasts in all walks of life than make themselves known or are visible on the surface. The same was true in colonial days when there was a lot of unspoken pro-Beijing and anti-British sentiment amongst the general population than was generally acknowledged.

Both of the former "big powers" also seem to be having democracy problems. In the USA the Republican Mitt Romney struggles through a mouthful of feet to gain credibility and traction. He plays well to many in America,- notably the religious right though even they are a bit confused as to where his particular brand of Godliness fits with others,- but he does not look inspiring abroad. Neither does a simple, comforting, "safe pair of hands" come readily to mind as a description of his reliabilty with nuclear buttons . His understanding of the world, its complexities, histories and cultures doesn't look impressive either. That's putting it mildly. Americans though don't seem to feel that overall they've got it too bad and especially to the inland majority what the rest of the world thinks, and even where it is, is not of great interest or concern.  Many Russians on the other hand ,with Putin well dug in at the helm,  probably do. think life could be a lot better. Certainly any of them not prepared to buckle under , tow the line, or work within the system must feel a deep sense of insecurity. Anyone who dares to conspicuously challenge the way things are knows they are in a high risk zone.

"No to no 3rd Heathrow runway or I quit"-Zac Goldsmith.

Zac Goldsmith , the Conservative MP for Richmond has promised  (strangely he calls it threatened) not to stand for the party if their 2015 election manifesto does not specifically rule out a 3rd runway at Heathrow.

Excellent.

Goodbye Zac. 

A rude awakening from holiday,- Clegg squeaks up.

Just as we were all revelling in what we thought were the last few days of the politician-free summer holidays our snoozing was rudely interrupted by premature squeaking from the Clegg corner. It seems he has EasyJetted back back from Spain, presumably in an aircraft burning only eco renewable vegetation .If so somewhere in Spain they are a hundred or more acres shorter on tangleweed fields than they were before his flight took off.

His sense of timing in speaking to the Guardian was impeccably bad and his theme totally out of step with this extraordinary and very successful British summer. Timingwise, he obviously hasn't got it that the nation isn't yet ready for resumed political twittering and sanctimonious tweaking of its consciences .Next ,most of the nation is this very evening embarking on another ten days of shouting for Britain and individuals to win via a process in which sheer guts, determination and effort will succeed. Not the greatest moment to be hand wringing and promising to "hard wire" fairness into everything we do. In sport , fairness is defined only by the things just mentioned. Even they can not sometimes overcome good days and bad days, quirks of fortune and other unpredicatable variables. It isn't all fair for team GB , team anyone else or the individuals but they have to deal with it and may or may not win or lose. Fairness is never going to be hard wired into anything and anyway, the national mood isn't right now in tune with this sort of utterance. Since June there has been a lot of spontaneous and organised togetherness. Grumpy unions apart , a lot of people have pitched in , given their time for free, worked cooperatively in teams with people they never knew before and found,- no surprise,- that all the effort winning in whatever they were doing,- manning the venues, railway stations, running routes was immensely satisfying , pleasurable and had nothing to do with money. They have worked hard and made their own and each others' success. That's real fairness. Trying to tax winners, in this case the old standby "the rich",  to even things out is not. It's just a window dressing charade and almost always ends up with the Exchequer taking less money than it did before.At worst some of those affected move abroad and stop spending anything in the UK. Who suffers? Everyone,-the national purse, the builders, restauranters, shops,everyone all the way through to the newsagents, maintainence people and gardners. Less money jobs for everyone.Good outcome?

Not content with prattling on in this vein, Mr Clegg ended up saying of the forthcoming Part Conference  "This is the time when we (the Lib Dems) can spread out wings more" in differentiating the party from its uneasy coalition bedfellows via whose 2010 failure to secure an overall majority the Lib Dems are currently enjoying the trappings of Minsterial and other nice offices. There is no love or even vague loyalty here and future possible partners, that's to say Labour, will be observing Lib Dem behaviour closely . The sensible will be deciding that a coalition post 2015 would only be a very last resort. That makes it likely ,that faced with being the largest single party but lacking an overall majority , Labour would do what the Conservatives should have done in 2010 and run as a minority government for a few months,- mainly through the summer recess,- make sure they lose an early vote and then call a new election which they would be likely to win on a "Give us a proper chance or put up with 5 years of chaos and nothing happening" ticket.

The spreading of wings exhortation reminds eeerily of Liberal leader David Steele's laughable 1981 Party Conference exhortation to "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government". At the time they were forming an alliance with the new Labour breakaway group, the SDP . At the next General Election in 1983 the two combined won a total of 23 seats.

Right now for anyone betting on 2015, whatever else happens to the balance between the two main parties,  the most likely outcome is a near wipeout for the Lib Dems. Unfair maybe Nick but that's reality whatever your hotwiring unit gets up to. There are ways to achieve a better result but trashing the coalition and rendering it impotent for the next 2-3 yeats only guarantees an outright Labour victory.

The Silly Season is upon us. "Parliament may close for 5 years"- Sunday Times headline.

Yes, there it was to cheer us all up this morning. But...of course it was too good to be true and the article was about the need to refurbish the place, strip out asbestos, century old plumbing and ancient electric wiring . It wasn't  a scheme just to shut up its incumbents and let the country sort itself out without them for 5 years.

Putting that aside what else has occupied the "Silly Season" this past week?

-The core of the season,-when the media scrape any ballel for stories as the world is on holiday,- is this year squeezed from its usual six weeks during the core school holidays into about three. That's the gap between the pages-filling Olympics and the slighly less pages-filling Paralympics which will give a final ten day burst to Britain's carnival summer which started with the Royal Jubilee in June. The politicians are on hols bar the odd photoshoot of Dave, one in the sun at a Spanish cafe and one, yesterday, bravely sitting outside another in Cornwall  between heavy bursts of rain. Nobody has bothered to photograph Ed in Greece , Nick in Spain or any of the Ballses anywhere. Goodness knows or cares where all the rest are, but hopefully they really are on holiday , having a good time and taking in some deep gulps of fresh air to aerate the grey cells so that, genuinely refreshed , they can contemplate the world unbefuddled, from some new angles and with revitalised energy. There's no harm in hoping.

-Shock horror from disappointed parents, children, teachers and their ghastly unions who exist in a world of denial that all teachers everywhere are anything but excellent. (One thing they never do is ask the kids, never mind the parents, for a view). Some grade boundaries have been re-set . That has produced a 0.4 % decline in average grades this year after years of constant inflation while real standards have declined. True, that  it is tough on those who can say that if they'd sat the exams last January or last year when the barriers were lower they would have got a higher grade but the process needs to continue for quite a while as standards are moved up, questions are made more demanding and more weight is given to exams rather than ongoing course work so that the answers genuinely come from the pupils , not Mum and Dad or Wikipedia.

-More shock horror, sanctimonious handwringing and the like from some quarters over right royal goings on in Las Vegas on the part of Prince Harry. The man is 27, single, is a real soldier/airman, knows that the batchelor life can't last much longer, so what can one expect. Interestingly 68% of the British population range from slightly bemused to "good on you" stances. The remaining 32% range from "How can he do this when we are facing austerity (what?),-why isn't he sharing our pain?" through layers of the hypocritical whose real thoughts are probably more like "Lucky ------" to those who genuinely do feel that he is too old for these kinds of displays and should grow up and act with decorum. With the latter one can sympathise but the rest...no.  The Prince probably does though need to discard some of his hangers-on who will probably never grow up and now best left behind.

-Over in America, BAe who have invested heavily in the country in hopes of gaining access to its military market lost its bid to build a new Humvee for the army. No surprise other than that BAe, not all American boys however much they like to look like ones, should be surprised. Not long ago they were beneficiaries when Airbus won a contract to supply a tanker/transport version of the A330 to replace the US Air Force tanker fleet. Howls of anguish all round. Eventually the contract was suspended, the specification rewritten to fit a smaller aircraft and lo and behold the rerun went to a version of the Boeing 767 whose well amortised  civil production line is winding down. The real home team won. Let's be realistic. It always will.

-While still on that side of the Atlantic, viewers from this side of the pond can only gape as the Republican  Party wheels out a Presidential candidate and running mate whose agendas look so illiberal, (no to abortion)  bellicose (Middle East), hard faced (opposition to Obama's abandonment of a"pay or die" health regime), as to be downright scary. That may also be true in the Democrat heartlands most familiar to foreigners,- the North East and West Coast but in those areas where few from overseas tread they are part of what people believe America is or should be. Frighteningly for the rest of the world many/most Republicans really do believe they have God on their side. And their version of God isn't a particularly smiley one.

-As for Syria the cent/ penny about known and unknown genies unbottled by the events has begun to drop in Washington and London. Assad has been warned not to think about using his store of chemical weapons (wonder where those came from?) with a rider that nobody else should think of using them either. With the eventual outcome of this particular branch of the Arab Spring which has moved through a number of stages from demonstrations to civil war almost impossible to predict other than that Assad will eventually go, there are  grave concerns about who might eventually end up posessing this nasty pile and what they might do with them.

-South Africa has had a bad week. A three cornered but more multi faceted than that spat between two rival unions and the mining company Lonmin, for which read any other mine employer opens up some of the fault lines facing the country and why it isn't getting the new inward investment it needs to provide a vast number of new jobs. In the mix are the rough, tough nature of the country's unions, the fact that much of South Africas's mining wealth has always been founded on cheap labour, the needs of businesses to stay competitive with (low) Asian wage rates, the failure of the employers and government to upgrade the physical living conditions for the miners and the poor and to get rid of the extensive shanty towns with their lack of adequate water ,electricity ,sanitation and paved roads , where crime and brutality inevitably thrive. Expectations from the New South Africa were always higher than could be met in the short term but the lack of visible improvement in many areas has produced enormous pressures very close to the surface. In the rural districts, especially in the Transvaal , this has been manifested by ongoing murders of white farmers, mainly Afrikaaners. Elsewhere including in the vast sprawling shanty towns between Capetown and the nearby wine growing and resort area at Somerset West and around the mines ,it is surprising that there has not been more trouble. Urgent action and a lot of money is urgently needed to improve conditions all round. Failing that it is difficult to see how things can remain as peaceful as they are.

-Closer to home Eurowoes continue. Hasn't it ever occured to most Eurozone leaders that when those who want to cut a deal, gain more time etc, they don't go to Amsterdam, Luxemburg or anywhere other than just the two places, Berlin and Paris. Doesn't that tell the rest that for all their denials that they have lost any sovereignty in signing up to "The Project" they have indeed done just that and when the chips are down there are only two players who call the shots? It's not much different for the non Eurozone E U countries either. Fine if all the member states are really happy with that but how many have put the question to their citizens?
Meanwhile both Germany and France have given some short term comfort to the Greek " We need more time" supplication . After initially looking very stony faced about the idea ,both countrys'  "Greece must stay in the Euro" statements make it look as if Athens' day of reckoning may be delayed and billions more thrown in to achieve that respite. That looks like an  expensive form of denial. It is unlikely that a Greek exit would be disastrous for the Euro. In fact it could be regarded as a useful trial of the whole process and effects of an a country binning the joint currency and provide useful learning about how to handle other looming and much bigger resource sapping candidates.

Usually Britain's August bank on the last Monday of the month holiday signals a mass return from summer holiday retreats and the imminent beginning of the new school term and the nation being almost all back to work for the first time since "the season" began with Ascot, Henley and Wimbledon in June. This year because of the way the dates fall, that doesn't happen until after next weekend, the first in September. Then there are a few more days lull while everyone readjusts, buys new uniforms, and basks in the last of the summer (?) weather as the first autumnal early morning dew and that unmistakeable nip in the air arrives . On Monday 10th September UK Plc will be almost 100%  back at its desks, facing the post summer hangover, holiday credit card bills, and reaquainting itself with some daunting economic and political realities. The Party conferences will be there to help us .As a curtain raiser the brothers and sisters will have opened the Trade Union Congress annual snarl and rant the previous day. It must be a really fun thing to go to.